SUBRAMANIA GURUKKAL Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These second appeals have been preferred by the defendants in the suit challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned sub judge, Vridhachalam in A.S. No. 40 of 1984 and in A.S. No. 46 of 1984 allowing the appeals filed by the plaintiff/respondent herein. The plaintiff/respondent in the second appeals filed two suits in O.S. No. 1345 of 1982 and O.S. No. 1346 of 1982 before the learned District Munsif, Vridhachalam for recovery of a sum of Rs. 11,720. According to the plaintiff, the first defendant obtained a sum of Rs. 11, 720 from the plaintiff-bank towards agricultural loan for the period 1976-77 and executed two promissory notes for a sum of Rs. 5,600 each on 28-5-1976 to and in favour of the second defendant who in turn transferred the same in favour of the plaintiff-bank, On the same day both the defendant have also jointly executed a standing crop hypothecation agreement. The said promissory note were renewed jointly by both the defendants on 16-2-1979. However," on 12-2-1982, the first defendant renewed the promissory notes and the second defendant did not renew the same. When the defendants failed to return the loan when demanded the plaintiff was compelled to file the suits.

(2.) The suits were reisted by the first defendant stating that the revival letter dated 12.2.1982 said to have been written by him was not genuine as the same was obtained by coercive measure, therefore the same cannot be taken into consideration and in the absence of such revival, letter the suits were barred by limitation. The second defendant resisted the suits on the ground that he did not execute any revival letter and therefore the suits were barred by limitation.

(3.) On the basis of the above pleadings the trial Court framed as many as five issues, more particularly as to (1) whether the alleged letter dated 12.2.1982 reviving the promissory notes was true and reliable? and (2) whether the suits were filed within the period of limitation? The trial Court while considering the first issue namely as to whether the revival letter dated 12.2.1982 was genuine obtained by coersive method, came to the conclusion that the said revival letter was obtained by coercive method and therefore the same cannot be taken into consideration while considering the question of limitation. The trial Court therefore, held that the suits filed beyond the period of three years from 16.2.1979 were barred by limitation. The trial Court also found, that the standing crop hypothecation agreement cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of deciding the question of limitation and accordingly dismissed the suits.